A German court on Wednesday dismissed a Peruvian farmer’s lawsuit seeking damages from German utility RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk through climate change, as the judge ruled that a damage-risk estimate was too small to take the case further.
But legal and scientific experts working on climate change – who have closely followed the pioneering case – hailed its wider significance, arguing that the judgement affirmed that major emitters of planet-heating gases can be held liable for their contributions to climate change, even from overseas.
Experts say the precedent could encourage impacted communities to seek justice through the courts.
“The ruling confirmed that climate science can provide a basis for legal liability, which is a critical precedent in the broader push for climate accountability,” Dr Delta Merner of the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union for Concerned Scientists said in a statement. The green group noted that dozens of similar cases are globally working their way through the courts.
Comment: The Peruvian farmer who has changed the climate litigation landscape forever
The German court in the western city of Hamm said that no appeal was possible in the widely followed, decade-old case of farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who claimed that emissions from coal giant RWE contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers and to a higher flood risk for his home.
Presiding judge Rolf Meyer said experts’ estimate of the 30-year damage risk to the plaintiff’s house of 1% was not high enough to take the case further.
Nonetheless, had there been a larger adverse effect, a polluter could have been made to slash emissions or pay damages, Meyer said.
The judge added that the plaintiff’s case was argued coherently and that it was “like a microcosm of the world’s problems between people of the southern and the northern hemisphere, between the poor and the rich.”
RWE questions legal precedent
Germanwatch, an environmental and human rights advocacy group supporting the litigation, cited Lliuya’s lawyer Roda Verheyen as saying the case would encourage more lawsuits.
“What the court said today means that other people can bring other cases, other people who are affected by climate change, and can draw on that principle,” Noah Walker-Crawford, a researcher at London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute, said after the verdict.
However, RWE, which is phasing out its coal-fired power plants, said the attempt to create a legal precedent had failed.
“We regard it as an entirely misplaced approach to turn courtrooms into a forum for NGOs’ demands on climate protection policies,” the utility said in a statement.
Scientists predict global warming of more than 1.5C for 2025-2029 period
RWE said it was on track to become climate neutral by 2040 and that the German industrial sector overall had progressed well in cutting CO2 emissions compared with other countries.
Using data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers, Lliuya has previously claimed RWE was responsible for nearly 0.5% of global man-made emissions since the industrial revolution and must pay a proportionate share of the costs to adapt to climate change.
For a $3.5-million flood defence project needed in his region, RWE’s share would be around $17,500, according to Lliuya’s calculations.
‘Polluter pays’ principle
The 44-year-old farmer, whose family grows corn, wheat, barley and potatoes outside Huaraz, was not in court on Wednesday. He has said he chose to sue RWE, rather than any company projects near his home, because it is one of the biggest polluters in Europe.
Speaking to reporters from a hotel in his hometown of Huaraz, Lliuya said that even though the court threw out the case, it was a step forward for climate justice.
“From the beginning we wanted to set a precedent to hold companies responsible,” Lliuya said. “We didn’t get everything, but this was a big step forward for other lawsuits.”
ClientEarth, an environmental law non-profit, said in a statement that under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the ruling meant future legal cases could demand remedial action from companies – for example, funding action to reduce flood risks.
“This ruling could light the fuse on litigation that holds the most untouchable-seeming businesses to account for their climate destruction,” said Adam Weiss, ClientEarth’s Chief Programmes and Impact Officer.
“This should be a tense day for those relying on business models centred on fossil fuels. Legal consequences are snapping at their heels,” he added in a statement.
Hamm’s regional court has not yet made public the full ruling in their official platform, but NGO Germanwatch has uploaded an English-language version of the verdict.
The post Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action appeared first on Climate Home News.
Peruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits